INSANE  AND  HOMESTEAD  BILLS-CLAYTON  AMENDMENT. 


V  I  E  YV  s 

9  , 

RICHARD 

i 

4 

EXPRESSED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


BRODHEAD 


July  5,  1854. 

The  Senate  having  resumed  the  consideration  of 
the  President’s  Message  vetoing  the  Indigent  In¬ 
sane  Bill — 

Mr.  BRODHEAD  said: 

Mr.  President:  This  is  a  proper  occasion  to 
consider  the  insane  and  the  homestead  bills.  1 
propose  to  say  a  few  words  in  regard  to  both;  my 
rrw.in  object,  however,  being  to  assign  the  reasons 
for  the  vote  i  intend  to  give  against  the  one  last 
named.  The  message  of  the  President,  refusing 
his  sanction  to  the  insane  bill,  brings  it  oefore  us 
for  reconsideration.  Some  of  his  reasons,  if  good 
against  the  one,  are  equally  conclusive,  in  my  opin¬ 
ion,  against  the  other.  Upon  this  point,  however, 
there  is  much  dispute  am^ng  his  friends,  not  only 
in  this  body,  but  elsewhere.  In  view  of  this 
fact,  if  1  wished  to  embarrass  him,  and  could  so 
far  disregard  my  duty  as  to  desire  to  do  so  on  a 
great  measure  of  this  kind,  1  would  vote  for  the 
homestead  bill,  and  send  it  to  him  either  to  be 
signed  or  vetoed.  But,  sir,  I  am  governed  by  no 
such  motive.  I  consider  the  positions  taken  by 
the  President  against  the  insane  bill  impregnable, 
and  his  reasoning  unanswerable;  and  l  will  en¬ 
deavor  to  show  that  some  of  them  commit  against 
the  homestead  bill.  But  whether  they  do  or  not, 
1  think  l  can  show  good  cause  for  the  vote  I  in¬ 
tend  to  give  against  it  when  it  comes  up. 

The  following  giant  of  power  is  found  in  the 
fourth  article  of  the  Constitution: 

“  The  Cqugress  sjrill  have  power  indispose  of,  and  make 
all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting,  the  territory  or 
other  property  belonging  to  the  United  States.” 

This  clause  when  considered  alone  would  cer¬ 
tainly  seem  to  confer  upon  Congress  absolute  and 
unqualified  jurisdiction  over  the  public  lands,  but 
in  order  to  comply  with  a  sound  rule  of  construc¬ 
tion,  it  must  be  considered  in  connection  with 
other  grants  and  restrictive  clauses  in  the  same 
instrument.  Under  it  Congress  passed  the  bill  now 
about  to  be  reconsidered,  granting  ten  millions  of 
acres  of  the  public  lands  (not  to  be  sold  for  less 
than  $10,000,000)  for  the  support  of  the  indigent 
insane  in  the  several  States,  and  to  be  divided 
among  the  several  States  in  proportion  to  size  and 
representation.  The  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the 
said  lands  to  be  managed  in  pursuance  of  the 
terms  of  the  grant  by  State  authority. 


j  Under  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  I 
j  have  just  cited,  the  advocates  of  this  bill  contend 
!  that  Congress  has  the  same  power  to  grant  or  give 
away,  or  **  dispose ”  of  the  public  lands,  that  a  man 
'owning  a  farm  in  fee  simple,  would  have,  and 
hence  that  Congress  has  a  right  to  grant  the  pub¬ 
lic  lands  for  the  benefit  of  the  insane  poor  in  the 
States.  I  cannot  concur  in  opinion  with  them. 
The  Federal  and  State  governments  seldom,  if 
ever,  have  concurrent  jurisdiction  on  any  subject. 
The  Federal  Government  is  one  ofgranted  powers, 
and  all  power  not  granted  is  retained  by  the  States. 
Now,  it  will  not  be  contended  that  theStates  have 
not  power  to  make  provision  for  the  support  of  the 
insane  poor,  or  the  poor  not  insane,  or  the  poor 
orphan,  and  hence  for  the  Federal  Government  to 
attempt  to  do  it,  would  be  a  violation  of  State 
sovereignty  and  a  reversal  of  the  great  leading  and 
,  fundamental  idea  upon  which  the  Federal  Govern¬ 
ment  is  founded,to  wit:  the  independence  and  the 
sovereignty  of  the  States.  A  private  owner  of 
land  is  under  no  restraint  as  to  alienation.  A  father 
may  dispose  of  his  land  so  as  to  do  great  injustice 
to  his  wife  and  children.  Partiality  or  caprice  may 
control  him.  But  Congress  has  no  such  power 
over  the  public  lands  when  the  whole  scope  and 
meaning  of  the  Constitution  is  considered.  It  is 
a  trustee  for  the  people  of  all  the  States,  controlled 
by  the  restrictions’and  limitations  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tion.  For  example,  the  Constitution  says,  “Con¬ 
gress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  establish¬ 
ment  of  religion,”  and  therefore  Congress  could 
not  dispose  of  the  public  lands  for  the  benefit  of 
any  particular  church  or  denomination  of  Chris¬ 
tians.  Congress  cannot  order  the  public  lands  to 
be  sold  and  the  proceeds  to  be  paid  to  the  differ¬ 
ent  States  for  the  purpose  of  paying  the  judges  and 
governors  thereof. 

In  addition  to  the  authorities  cited  by  the  Pres- 
j  ident  in  support  of  the  strict  construction  and 
State-rights  doctrine  upon  which  he  bases  his 
objections  to  this  bill,  I  beg  leave  to  read  brief  ex¬ 
tracts  from  the  proceedings  of  the  conventions  of 
;  some  of  the  States  called  for  the  purpose  of  ratify- 
j  ing  the  Constitution  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
j  how  much  power  was  granted,  and  how  much 
retained  by  the  States.  The  great  objection  to  the 
I  Constitution  was,  that  it  conferred  too  much  power 
J  on  the  General  Government,  and  therefore  it  was 


ratified  with  a  sort  of  Protestando,  and  an  amend¬ 
ment  was  afterwards  adopted  in  accordance  with, 
and  almost  in  the  language  suggested  by  the  State 
conven  tions. 

Massachusetts. 

“And  as  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  convention  that  certain 
amendments  and  alterations  in  the  said  Constitution  would 
remove  the  fears  and  quiet  the  apprehensions  of  many  of 
the  good  people  of  this  Commonwealth,  and  more  effect¬ 
ually  guard  against  an  undue  administration  of  the  Federal 
Government,  the  convention  do  therefore  recommend  that 
the  following  alterations  aud  provisions  be  introduced  into 
the  said  Constitution  : 

“First.  That  it  be  explicitly  declared  that  all  powers  not 
expressly  delegated  by  the  aforesaid  Constitution,  are  re¬ 
served  to  the  several  States,  to  be  by  them  exercised.” 

South  Carolina. 

“  This  convention  doth  also  declare,  that  no  section  or 
paragraph  of  the  said  Constitution  warrants  a  construction 
that  the  States  do  not  retain  every  power  not  expressly 
relinquished  by  them,  and  vested  in  the  General  Govern¬ 
ment  of  the  Union.” 

4/Vet o  Hampshire. 

“First.  That  it  be  explicitly  declared  that  all  powers  not 
expressly  and  particularly  delegated  by  the  aforesaid  Con¬ 
stitution,  are  reserved  to  the  several  States,  to  be  by  them 
exercised.” 

Virginia. 

“  IHrst.  That  each  State  in  the  Union  shall  respectively 
retain  every  power,  jurisdiction  and  right,  which  is  not  by 
this  Constitution  delegated  to  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  or  to  the  departments  of  the  Federal  Government.” 

4 North  Carolina. 

“First.  That  each  State  in  the  Union  shall,  respectively, 
retain  every  power,  jurisdiction  and  right,  which  is  not  bv 
this  Constitution  delegated  to  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  or  to  the  departments  of  the  Federal  Government.5' 

•Amendment  afterwards  adopted. 

“The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the 
Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  reserved 
to  the  States,  respectively,  or  to  the  people.55 

But,  Mr.  President,  as  I  do  not  wish  to  repeat 
the  arguments  of  the  President  and  Senators  who 
have  preceded  me  in  opposition  to  this  bill,  I  will 
conclude  by  saying,  that  I  thank  the  President  for 
resisting  one  of  the  evil  tendencies  of  the  times,  I 
mean  the  tendency  to  consolidation.  This  Gov¬ 
ernment  seems  to  be  fast  becoming:  one  vast,  con- 
solidated  empire — the  Executive  having  more 
power  and  patronage  than  was  ever  dreamed  of 
by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution.  The  States 
seem  to  be  fast  becoming  mere  corporations,  de¬ 
pending  upon  the  Federal  Government  for  sup¬ 
port.  There  being  a  large  surplus  in  the  Treasury, 
obtained  by  indirect  taxation  through  custom¬ 
house  duties,  Congress  is  constantly  besieged  to 
overstep  its  legitimate  powers.  To  this  surplus 
treasury  is  added  a  surplus  quantity  of  land.  It 
seems  almost  impossible  to  resist  those  who  come 
here  to  capture  the  public  Treasury,  or  to  ap¬ 
propriate  to  themselves  the  public  lands.  The 
restrictions  and  limitations  of  the  Constitution 
seem  to  be  of  no  avail  when  ambition  prompts  or 
interest  leads  the  way.  Wherever  there  is  money 
and  power,  there  seems  to  be  a  disposition  to  use 
the  one  and  abuse  the  other.  Notwithstanding  the 
general  and  great  purpose  of  the  Union  was  to 
protect  us  against  foreign  invasion,  domestic  com¬ 
motions,  and  insurrections,  _ and  to  regulate  our 
intercourse  with  foreign  nations,  we  are  asked  to 
attend  to  the  business  of  the  Slates,  by  aiding  in 
the  construction  of  railroads,  the  support  of  the 
poor  and  insane,  &c.  Stale  politics  and  politicians 
are  made  subordinate  to  Federal  power,  although 
the  reverse  was  intended.  My  opinion  is,  and  I 


2 


have  before  expressed  it  to  the  Senate,  together 
with  some  of  the  views  which  I  havejust  advanced, 
that  if  discord  among  the  States,  rebellion,  and 
anarchy,  shall  ever  destroy  this  fair  land ,  it  will  be 
I  because  this  Government  has  assumed  powers  not 
!  granted  by  the  Constitution.  With  these  remarks, 
1  press  forward  to  the  execution  of  my  main  pur- 
ji  pose,  which  is  to  assign  my  reasons  against  the 
j  homestead  bill,  which  has  not  yet  been  much  dis¬ 
cussed,  and  which  i  consider  much  more  objec- 

I  tionable  than  the  one  now  before  the  Senate. 

HOMESTEAD  BILL. 

The  first  section  provides  that  any  free  white 
person,  whether  the  head  of  a  family  or  not,  and 
who  is  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  shall  have,  free 
of  cost,  one  quarter  section  (one  hundred  and  sixty 
acres)  of  land.  The  sixth  section  enlarges  the 
operation  a  little,  and  extends  the  privilege  to 
foreigners  now  resident  in  the  United  States,  and 
j  who  have  filed  their  declaration  of  intention  to 
become  citizens;  but  it  say3  they  shall  not  have  a 
j{  patent  for  the  land  until  they  become  citizens  under 

II  our  naturalization  laws.  And  why  should  its  ben- 
ij  efits  be  confined  to  aliens  now  in  the  United  States? 

Are  not  those  who  intend  to  come  as  good  as 
j  those  who  are  now  here?  Why  give  land,  de¬ 
ll  signed  for  the  use  of  man,  to  those  who  come  this 
year,  and  not  to  those  who  come  next?  And  why 
withhold  a  patent  from  aliens  until  they  have  been 
|  five  years  in  the  country,  and  complied  with  our 
naturalization  laws.  Many  of  the  advocates  of 
this  bill  refused  to  support,  with  me,  the  Clayton 
amendment  to  the  Nebraska  bill,  which  withheld 
the  right  to  vote  from  aliens  until  they  had  com¬ 
plied  with  our  naturalization  laws,  and  become 
citizens.  So  that  they  are  willing  to  give  aliens, 

|  not  citizens,  the  right  to  take  part  in  elections  and 
\  govern — for  the  right  to  vote  is  the  right  to  govern 
j  — and  yet  will  refuse  them  the  means  wherewith 
to  live.  Sir,  in  view  of  many  considerations,  I 
I  would  much  rather  give  them  land  as  soon  as  they 
arrive  in  the  country,  than  I  would  the  right  to 
vote  before  they  have  complied  with  our  naturali¬ 
zation  laws  and  become  citizens,  as  was  done  in 
the  Nebraska  bill.  Several  Democratic  papers  in 
Pennsylvania,  of  abolition  proclivities,  attempted 
to  raise  a  hue  and  cry  against  me  for  sustaining 
the  Clayton  amendment,  and  congratulated  the 
country  upon  its  defeat;  but,  in  so  doing,  they  only 
followed  the  example  of  two  Senators,  [Chase  and 
Seward,]  v/ho  are  so  much  distinguished  for  their 
advocacy  of  abolition  doctrines.  Immediately 
after  the  defeat  of  the  Clayton  amendment,  the 
i  honorable  Senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Chase]  said: 

“The  rejection  of  the  [Clayton  J  amendment,  upon 
ij  which  we  have  just  voted,  is  a  grpat  t?:umph  of  principle, 
i  not  the  less  valuable  because  coerced  from  its  opponents  by 
a  necessity  to  which  they  have  yielded  so  reluctantly.” 

Upon  the  same  occasion, the  distinguished  Sen¬ 
ator  from  New  York  [Mr.  Seward]  taunted 
those  who  had  voted  for  the  amendment  in  about 
the  same  style,  and  informed  the  Senate  that  he 
had,  a  day  or  two  previous,  met  twelve  thousand 
foreigners,  who  had  just  arrived  in  one  day  in  the 
country ,  and  were  on  their  way  to  take  possession 
of  the  new  Territories.  The  truth  is,  the  yielding 
of  the  Clayton  amendment  was  a  concession  to 
the  spirit  of  abolitionism,  in  violation  of  the  spirit 
of  the  Constitution,  and  nothing  more. 

The  second  section  provides  that  the  person 
desiring  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land,  shall 


3 


make  an  affidavit  before  the  register  of  the  land 
office;  and  at  the  end  of  five  years  he  must  prove, 
by  two  witnesses,  before  the  same  officer,  that  he 
has  cultivated  the  same  for  five  years,  and  has 
not  alienated  the  same,  &c.  So  that  the  register 
of  the  land  office  is  made  a  kind  of  judicial  offi¬ 
cer.  The  door  to  perjury  is  opened  wide;  for  a 
man’s  title  depends  upon  his  own  affidavit,  and 
that  of  two  of  his  friends;  and  a  large  business  is 
provided  for  lawyers  in  the  shape  of  litigation. 

The  third  section  ptpvides  that  the  register 
shall  note  the  applications  on  the  tract  books,  &c.; 
and  the  fourth  section  says,  that  the  land  “  shall, 
in  no  event,  become  liable  for  the  satisfaction  of 
any  debt  or  debts  contracted  prior  to  the  issuing 
of  the  patent  therefor,”  thus  making  a  kind  of 
bankrupt  law  for  the  new  States,  and  not  for  the 
old  ones,  contrary  to  the  clause  in  the  eighth  sec¬ 
tion  of  the  Constitution,  which  says:  “  Congress 
shall  have  power  to  establish  uniform  laws  upon 
the  subject  of  bankruptcies  throughout  the  United 
States.”  What  right  has  Congress  to  say  that  a 
man’s  land  within  a  State  shall  not  be  liable  for 
his  debts?  In  the  Nebraska  bill  we  established 
the  non-intervention  rule,  even  in  the  Territories. 

The  last  section  which  is  material  confines  the 
entries  to  be  made  on  each  alternate  quarter  sec¬ 
tion  “as  near  as  may  he  practicable,”  &c.  Upon 
this  I  will  comment  before  I  conclude,  and  show 
that  it  is  of  no  benefit  whatever,  and  might  as 
well  be  out,  so  far  as  any  practical  benefit  may 
result  to  the  Government.  The  section  wasplaced 
in  the  bill  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  its  advocates 
to  say  that  it  would  not  diminish  the  receipts  from 
the  sales.  But  the  quarter  sections  retained  are 
not  doubled  in  price,  as  in  the  case  of  railroad 
grants;  and  I  will  hereafter  show  that  the  section 
is  a  mere  pretext  to  avoid  an  objection  to  the  bill. 

There  are  some  considerations,  Mr.  President, 
that  would  induce  me  to  favor  this  bill.  Some  of 
my  esteemed  colleagues  in  the  House  think  it  a 
good  one,  and  have  urged  its  passage  with  great 
zeal  and  ability.  The  Whig  and  Democratic  con¬ 
ventions,  which  recently  assembled  in  my  State, 
passed  resolutions  in  favor  of  it;  but,  believing,  as 
1  do,  that  it  is  a  bill  subversive  of  principle,  and 
injurious  to  my  State,  I  feel  bound,  by  a  stern 
sense  of  duty,  to  oppose  it  to  the  utmost  of  my 
ability.  The  resolutions  to  which  I  have  just  al¬ 
luded  may  be  regarded  by  some  as  amounting  to 
instructions  to  my  colleague  and  myself;  but  I  do 
not  so  consider  them.  I  have  a  proper  regard  for 
enlightened  popular  opinion,  but  do  not  think  con¬ 
ventions  and  State  Legislatures  always  its  true 
exponent.  I  claim  to  know  something  about  the 
wishes  of  the  people  myself,  and  especially  of  the 
old  Iine-strict-construction  Democrats.  The  Whig 
party  in  Pennsylvania  are  not  in  the  habit  of 
sanctioning  what  the  Democrats  call  strict-con- 
struction  views,  and  hence,  perhaps,  their  support 
of  the  bill. 

The  State  is  entitled  not  only  to  my  industry^ 
but  to  my  judgment.  I  give  it  upon  this  occasion 
against  the  bill,  notwithstanding  the  resolutions 
of  the  two  conventions.  The  conventions  and  the 
Legislature  sometimes  start  wrong  in  Pennsylva¬ 
nia  upon  great  national  questions.  They  started 
wrong,  in  my  day,  on  the  question  of  the  Bank 
of  the  United  States,  on  the  question  of  the  Sub- 
Treasury,  and  the  Wilrnot  proviso,  and  it  took 
the  people  some  time  to  put  them  right  The 


i; 

i; 


i 


I! 


recent  Democratic  convention  which  renominated 
Governor  Bigler  started  wrong,  by  passing  a  reso¬ 
lution  in  favor  of  the  homestead  bill;  and ,  by  some 
species  of  political  thimble-rigging,  a  few  mem¬ 
bers  thereof  made  the  convention  dodge  the  ques¬ 
tion  contained  in  the  Nebraska  bill.  Nay,  more, 
they  prevented  a  majority  from  passing  a  resolu¬ 
tion  in  favor  of  it;  for  there  were  a  large  majority 
in  its  favor.  If  the  convention  thought  proper  to 
express  an  opinion  in  regard  to  one  great  measure 
before  Congress,  it  surely  should  not  have  been  too 
timid  to  consider  another  of  equal  importance  in 
every  point  of  view.  But  I  feel  assured  that  the 
distinguished  gentleman  the  convention  placed  be¬ 
fore  the  people  for  Governor,  will  not  shrink  from 
a  proper  support  of  one  of  the  measures  of  the 
Democratic  party.  He  maintained,  with  great 
power  and  ability,  the  true  faith  upon  the  same 
subject  when  he  was  a  candidate  in  1851,  and  was 
successful.  It  may  be  policy  for  public  men  not 
to  meet  fairly,  or  to  withhold  an  expression  of 
opinion,  upon  great  questions;  but  I  never  thought 
so.  I  have  always  acted  upon  the  belief  that  the 
course  of  sound  policy  was  the  course  of  true  duty. 

There  has  been  considerable  sentiment  worked 
up  throughout  the  country  in  favor  of  this  bill; 
many  sentimental  and  eloquent  speeches  have 
been  made,  but  not  quite  as  many  as  were  made 
in  behalf  of  the  Wilrnot  proviso.  The  title  of 
the  bill,  as  introduced  into  the  House  of  Represent¬ 
atives,  is  a  very  captivating  one.  It  is  called  a 
“  Bill  to  encourage  agricultwe,  commerce,  and  man¬ 
ufactures,  and  ALL  OTHER  BRANCHES  OF  INDUSTRY,” 
&c.  It  is  the  same  title,  I  believe,  that  it  has  had 
since  Felix  G.  McConnell,  a  member  from  the  State 
of  Alabama,  introduced  it  in  the  House  of  Repre¬ 
sentatives  almost  ten  years  ago.  I  well  recollect 
the  occasion.  Since  that  it  was  brought  conspic¬ 
uously  before  the  country  by  Mr.  Johnson, 
now  the  Governor  of  Tennessee;  but  the  bill 
which  he  advocated  did  not  go  so  far  as  this — it 
only  gave  land  to  the  landless  heads  of  families; 
under  the  present  bill  a  man  in  Iowa,  or  any  other 
State,  can  sell  or  rent  his  farm,  and  take  another 
one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  he  may  want  in  the 
neighborhood,  before  the  people  from  Pennsylva¬ 
nia,  or  any  of  the  old  States,  could  move  out.  If 
it  is  really  a  meritorious  bill,  I  do  not  know  why  it 
should  have  such  a  title 

If  it  was  only  intended  to  catch  a  popular  breeze, 

I  think  I  could  suggest  an  amendment,  so  as  to 
make  it  read  “A  bill  to  encourage  agriculture, 
commerce,  and  manufactures,  and  all  other 
branches  of  industry,  to  give  everybody  everything, 
and  to  hasten  the  millenium.”  It  is  certainly  a  bill 
of  large  promises,  and,  I  think,  I  will  be  able  to 
show,  of  little  performance.  It  ought  to  be  called' 
a  bill  to  diminish  the  value  of  every  acre  of  land 
in  the  old  States,  and  especially  in  Pennsylvania, 
and  to  build  up  the  new  States;  a  bill  to  throw 
the  expenses  of  the  Land  Department  upon  the 
customs;  to  tax  the  people  of  the  old  States  to 
purchase  lands  to  give  away  to  foreigners  who 
have  not  yet  become  citizens  by  complying  with 
our  naturalization  laws;  a  bill  to  discriminate 
against  the  mechanic  and  other  persons  not  ac¬ 
quainted  with  agricultural  pursuits;  a  bill  to  des¬ 
troy  the  value  of  land  warrants  to  be  granted  to 
the  old  soldiers. 

I  stated  in  my  opening  that  the  message  under 
consideration  contained  sentiments  which  com- 


4 


mitted  the  President  against  this  bill;  and  I  will 
now  proceed  to  prove  that,  to  be  consistent,  he 
would  be  obliged  to  veto  it.  The  President, 
after  quoting  a  portion  of  the  act  of  1847,  pledging 
the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  for 
the  redemption  of  the  $23,000,000  war  loan,  and 
saying  that  it  would  be  a  violation  of  the  pledged 
faith  of  the  Government  to  grant  the  lands  to  the 
States  for  the  benefit  of  the  insane  poor,  proceeds 
to  argue  as  follows: 

“  I  have  been  unable  to  discover  any  distinction,  on  con¬ 
stitutional  grounds,  or  grounds  of  expediency,  between  an 
appropriation  of  ,$.10,00(1,000  directly  from  the  money  in  the 
Treasury,  for  the  object  contemplated,  and  the  appropria¬ 
tion  of  lands  presented  for  my  sanction  ;  and  yet  1  cannot 
doubt  that  if  the  bill  proposed  $10,000,000  from  the  Treas¬ 
ury  of  the  United  States  for  the  support  of  the  indigent 
insane  in  the  several  States,  that  the  constitutional  ques¬ 
tion  involved  in  the  act  would  have  attracted  forcibly  the 
attention  of  Congress. 

“  I  respectfully  submit  that,  in  a  constitutional  point  of 
view,  it  is  wholly  immaterial  whether  the  appropriation  be 
in  money  or  in  land. 

“  The  public  domain  is  the  common  property  of  the 
Union,  just  as  much  as  the  surplus  proceeds  of  that,  and  of 
duties  on  imports,  remaining  unexpended  in  the  Treasury. 
As  such,  it  has  been  pledged,  is  now  pledged,  and  may 
need  to  be  so  pledged  again,  for  public  indebtedness. 

“As  property,  it  is  distinguished  from  actual  money  chiefly 
in  this  respect,  that  its  profitable  management  sometimes 
requires  that  portions  of  it  be  appropriated  to  local  objects 
in  the  States  wherein  it  may  happen  to  lie,  as  would  be 
done  by  any  prudent  proprietor  to  enhance  the  sale  value 
of  his  private  domain. 

“  All  such  grants  of  land  are,  in  fact,  a  disposal  of  it  for 
value  received,  but  they  afford  no  precedent  or  constitu¬ 
tional  reason  for  giving  away  the  public  lands.  Still  less 
do  they  give  sanction  to  appropriations  for  objects  whicli 
have  not  been  entrusted  to  the  Federal  Government  and 
therefore  belong  exclusively  to  the  States.” 

It  will  be  perceived  that  the  President  distinctly 
says,  that,  in  a  constitutional  point  of  view,  there 
is  no  difference  between  money  and  land.  And  I 
add,  that  I  have  no  more  power  to  giveaway  one 
hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land ,  without  considera¬ 
tion  ,  than  I  have  to  give  away  or  go  and  take  $]  60 
from  the  public  Treasury.  But  it  is  said  that  the 
President  would  sign  this  bill  because  the  alternate 
sections  are  retained ,  and  that  a  prudent  proprietor 
might  give  away  a  part,  in  order  to  enhance  the 
sale  value  of  the  parts  retained.  And  this  allegation 
raises  a  question  of  fact:  How  much,  if  any,  will 
this  bill  diminish  the  receipts  from  the  sale  of  the 
public  lands?  The  answer  to  this  question  will 
determine  the  position  of  the  President.  I  say  it 
will  nearly,  if  not  entirely,  destroy  the  land  rev¬ 
enue,  and  charge  $2,000,000  or  $3,000,000  per 
annum  upon  the  customs.  Is  that  right?  Is  that 
the  way  a  prudent  proprietor  would  act?  We 
now  have  a  communication  on  our  tables  from  the 
Postmaster  General,  asking  us  to  appropriate  over 
$2,000,000  from  the  customs  to  sustain  that  De¬ 
partment,  when  the  Democratic  rule  used  to  be,  that 
the  Post  Office  should  sustain  itself.  So,  also, 
with  the  Land  Department. 

A  man  wishing  to  build  up  a  city,  or  a  town, 
might  well  afford  to  give  away  every  other  lot, 
provided  the  purchaser  would  improve  it,  but  not 
so  with  a  vast  tract  of  country,  useful  only  for 
agricultural  purposes.  The  best  sections  will  be 
taken  under  this  bill,  and  those  adjoining  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  will  seldom,  if  ever,  sell.  The  truth  is, 
the  settlers  will  use  them  without  compensation, 
under  what  is  called  thessttlers’law.  A  man  would 


I 


not  want  to  purchase  one  without  having  the  con-  i 
sent  of  the  neighbors,  and  he  could  not  get  it.  It  j 
seems  to  me  that  any  person  who  will  reflect  for  : 


a  moment  must  conclude  that  the  land  revenues 
will  be  diminished  at  least  three  fourths.  People 
will  not  purchase  farming  land  when  they  can  get 
it  for  nothing.  They  will  go  a  mile  or  two  further 
in  order  to  get  a  farm  for  nothing  Only  about 
two  or  two  and  a  half  millions  of  acres  are  re¬ 
quired  annually  for  settlement  and  cultivation. 

Mr.  President,  I  know  very  well  that  it  is  sound 
policy  and  true  duty  to  dispose  of  the  public  land 
chiefly  with  a  view  to  settlement  and  cultivation. 
I  know  that  we  should  not  make  merchandise, 
without  regard  to  cost,  of  that  which  was  intended 
for  the  use  of  man.  I  know  that  freeholders  are 
the  natural  and  best  supporters  of  a  free  govern¬ 
ment.  I  am  in  favor  of  a  liberal  policy  toward 
those  who  lead  the  way  in  bringing  into  subjec¬ 
tion  the  wild  and  unbroken  lands  of  the  wilder¬ 
ness.  Hence  it  was  that,  when  I  first  became  a 
member  of  this  body,  I  brought  forward  a  bill  to 
graduate  and  reduce  the  price  of  the  public  lands; 
and  on  the  15th  of  March,  1852,  made  a  speech 
in  its  favor,  which  can  be  seen  in  the  Congres¬ 
sional  Globe.  I  had  two  objects  in  view;  first, to 
give  cheap  homes  to  poor  settlers,  without  viola¬ 
ting  principle;  and  second,  to  confront  the  railroad 
and  other  land  speculating  schemes  with  a  coun¬ 
ter  proposition.  But,  in  carrying  out  the  policy 
of  making  freeholders,  is  it  necessary  or  proper  to 
violate  other  maxims  of  political  economy?  Is  it 
necessary  or  proper  to  collect  taxes  from  all  the 
people,  rich  and  poor,  of  all  the  old  States,  to 
purchase  lands  to  give  away  to  those  who  are  not 
poor;  for  to  the  really  poor  this  bill  affords  no 
relief;  they  have  not  the  means  to  build  a  house 
and  commence  farming.  Is  it  according  to  the 
requirements  of  the  Constitution  to  collect  money 
by  means  of  impost  duties  from  the  people  of  all 
the  States,  to  pay  out  for  the  benefit  of  a  few 
States?  The  answer  to  this  inquiry  is  fatal  to 
the  argument  advanced  by  the  advocates  of  this 
bill. 

Again:  is  it  proper  to  create  an  idea  that  wealth 
and  prosperity  are  to  be  attained,  not  by  industry 
and  economy,  but  from  Government  bounties? 
Is  not  such  an  idea  fatal  to  liberty  ?  Was  not  the 
days  of  Roman  liberty  numbered  when  the  people 
consented  to  receive  their  supplies  from  the  public 
store  houses?  Was  not  the  days  of  the  French 
Republic  numbered  when  Lamartine  and  others 
established  public  workshops ?  As  we  now  have 
a  surplus  of  near  $30,000,000  in  the  Treasury, 
suppose  a  member  of  Congress  would  bring  for¬ 
ward  a  bill  to  pay  every  poor  man  and  woman  in 
the  United  States  above  the  age  of  twenty-one 
years  $160  out  of  the  public  Treasury,  would  that 
be  a  “  bill  to  encourage  agriculture,  commerce, 
manufactures,  and  all  other  branchesof  industry," 
or  would  it  be  a  bill  to  encourage  loaferism  ?  And 
would  the  cry  go  up  against  a  man  who  would 
oppose  such  a  measure,  that  lie  was  opposed  to 
the  poor;  and,  as  the  poor  greatly  outnumber  the 
rich,  would  he  be  voted  out  of  office  for  opposing 
such  an  act  of  political  prostitution?  Suppose  a 
candidate  for  the  Presidency  in  1856  should  de¬ 
clare  himself  in  favor  of  such  a  bill,  would  he 
succeed  against  a  pure  patriot  and  profound 
statesman  who  would  refuse  to  make  any  such 
donation  ?  I  hope  not,  although  1  confess  that 
demagogueism  has  gone  pretty  far  in  this  country. 
There  is,  however,  some  republican  purity  left 
yet.  I  believe  descendants  of  the  men  of  1776, 


5 


of  the  war  of  1812,  the  sons  of  the  old  Indian 
fighters,  (who  have  heretofore  been  obliged  to  pay 
for  land  if  they  wanted  any,)  however  poor,  would 
scorn  to  live  either  upon  the  charity  of  their 
neighbors,  or  the  bounty  of  thfeir  Government. 
What  is  the  object  of  Government?  Is  it  not  to 
give  protection  to  person  and  property,  and  to  tax 
the  people  as  little  as  possible  for  that  purpose? 

It  is  said,  however,  that  the  Government  is  a 
hard  landed  proprietor;  that  it  follows  and  exacts 
the  earnings  of  the  pioneer;  that  it  has  no  right  to 
prevent  the  people  from  entering  upon  and  culti¬ 
vating  land,  &e.  How  is  the  fact?  Suppose  the 
Government  had  not  gone  a  head  of  all,  put  up  for¬ 
tifications,  purchased  the  Indian  title,  removed  the 
Indians  west,  had  the  lands  regularly  surveyed, 
and  systematically  prepared  for  the  use  of  the  set¬ 
tlers,  and  those  who  prefer  frontier  life,  would  our 
settlements  be  half  as  far  west  as  they  now  are? 
Would  there  not  have  been  a  constant  scene  of 
border  warfare;  would  there  be  any  certainty  in 
regard  to  titles?  I  do  not  believe,  all  things  con¬ 
sidered,  that  the  Government  has  ever  yet  received 
adollarof  net  revenue  from  the  public  lands.  They 
cost  as  much,  if  not  more,  than  we  get  for  them. 
Since  I  have  been  a  member  of  this  body,  we  paid 
five  millions  for  the  extinguishment  of  the  Indian 
title  in  Minnesota,  besides  large  sums  to  extin- 
quish  titles  in  other  sections  of  the  country;  and 
treaties,  we  are  informed,  have  been  made  for  the 
extinguishment  of  Indian  titles  in  Nebraska  and 
Kansas. 

Has  not  the  Government  adopted  a  liberal  pol¬ 
icy  toward  the  western  States  and  people?  Has 
it  not  paid  the  expenses  of  territorial  govern¬ 
ments,  and  given  each  State  a  kind  of  outfit  when 
it  came  into  the  Union.  By  compact  with  the 
new  States,  upon  their  admission  into  the  Union, 
five  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of 
the  public  lands  is  set  apart  for  the  use  of  such 
States.  Three  per  cent,  is  to  be  annually  paid  to 
the  respective  (new)  States,  and  two  per  cent,  to 
be  used  in  constructing  roads  to  and  through 
them.  Generally  the  whole  five  per  cent,  has  been 
paid  to  them.  Out  of  this  three  and  two  per  cent, 
fund,  near  five  millions  have  been  paid  to  the  new 
States,  independent  of  what  was  expended  in  con¬ 
structing  roads  to  and  through  them.  We  have, 
too,  a  liberal  preemption  system  in  force.  Be¬ 
sides,  over  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  millions 
of  acres  of  public  lands  have  been  granted  to  the 
new  States,  for  the  purpose  of  education,  internal 
improvement,  &c.,  &c  ,  &c.  And  look,  as  a  con¬ 
sequence  of  this  liberal  policy,  at  the  unexampled 
growth  and  prosperity  of  the  western  and  south¬ 
western  country v  It  is  unexampled  in  the  history 
of  nations.  To  no  one  does  this  afford  more  sin¬ 
cere  pleasure  than  to  myself.  It  is  a  great  and 
glorious  spectacle  to  see  the  human  family  thus 
going  out,  not  lawlessly,  hut  under  wise  laws, 
peaceably  to  possess  the  earth,  and  to  enjoy  its 
fruits.  The  new  St  tes  now  possess  great  polit¬ 
ical  power.  They  grow,  multiply, and  prosper,  and 
I  presume  they  will  continue  to  do  so  until  they 
have  the  numerical  strength  to  control  the  Gov¬ 
ernment.  And  why  this  desire  to  build  up  pre¬ 
maturely  the  western  States  and  country  by  Gov¬ 
ernment  bounties?  Why  not  let  population  grad¬ 
ually  diffuse  itself  over  the  western  country  ?  Have 
not  settlements  progressed  West  fast  enough  ? 
Why  this  hot- bed  system  ?  A  natural  growth  is 


always  more  healthy  and  enduring  than  an  artifi¬ 
cial  one.  Why  offer  a  premium  to  the  people  of 
the  Old  World  and  old  States  to  settle  in  our  west¬ 
ern  country?  May  we  not  want  some  land  fifty 
or  one  hundred  years  hence  for  our  own  people 
gradually  to  go  out  upon?  May  we  not  want 
them  hereafter,  as  we  have  heretofore,  to  pay  our 
debts,  or  raise  money  upon? 

Let  me  now,  Mr.  President,  allude  to  the  prac¬ 
tical  effect  of  this  bill  upon  the  good  old  State  of 
Pennsylvania,  which  I  have  the  honor,  in  part,  to 
represent.  Does  it  not  proceed  upon  the  idea  of 
a  redundancy  of  population  and  an  amount  of 
pauperism  there  that  does  not  exist?  Who  will, 
or  who  can  in  that  State,  accept  its  provisions? 
Not  the  loafers  and  drinking  people  about  the 
towns  and  cities.  They  are  too  lazy  to  work, 
and  too  cowardly  to  steal,  and  have  not  the  means 
or  the  energy  to  make  a  settlement  on  one  hun¬ 
dred  and  sixty  acres.  If  farmers  and  industrious 
laboring  people,  who  have  got  means,  accept  its 
provisions,  they  are  obliged  to  leave  the  State; 
and  is  not  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  as  good  a 
place  for  this  class  of  people  as  any  other  State 
in  the  Union?  And  the  more  who  leave  the  less 
valuable  our  land  will  be,  and  the  less  will  be  the 
number  left  to  pay  the  taxes  and  do  the  work. 
And  if  they  do  go  West,  they  will  go  upon  a 
delusive  idea.  Before  they  can  get  out  there  the 
most  valuable  sections  will  be  taken  up.  Those 
living  in  the  new  States  in  the  neighborhood  know 
where  the  most  valuable  sections  are;  and  when 
our  Pennsylvania  people  would  arrive  out,  they 
would  find  settlers  upon  the  most  valuable  sections. 
Our  mechanics  cannot  accept  its  provisions,  be¬ 
cause  they  are  unaccustomed  to  agricultural  pur¬ 
suits,  and  yet  they  have  helped  pay  for  these 
lands,  and  have  an  interest  in  them,  because  they 
paid  their  proportion  of  the  taxes  by  which  they 
were  purchased.  Have  we  not  large  bodies  of 
good  uncultivated  lands  in  Pennsylvania?  The 
truth  is  we  have,  and  the  liberal  land  policy 
of  the  General  Government  west  has  prevented 
their  sale  and  settlement  for  the  last  fifty  years 
and  more.  And  why  should  the  Federal  Gov¬ 
ernment  purchase  land  west  to  give  away,  and 
notin  Pennsylvania?  Our  people  have  not  only 
paid  for  their  land,  but  they  have  agreed  to  tax 
themselves  to  construct  railroads  and  canals  over 
which  the  western  people  transport  their  produce. 
Will  not  the  best  portion  of  the  foreign  popula¬ 
tion,  those  who  have  some  means,  energy,  and 
industry,  push  on  west  to  accept  its  provisions, 
leaving  the  pauper  portion  of  the  emigrants  in 
Pennsylvania  and  other  Atlantic  States? 

I  regard  this  measure  as  more  objectionable  than 
any  of  the  land  schemes  which  have  been  brought 
before  Congress.  It  is  more  so  than  the  distribu¬ 
tion  policy,  because,  although  that  proposed  legis¬ 
lation  outside  the  Constitution,  it  was  for  the  bene¬ 
fit  of  all  the  States.  1 1  is  inferior  to  the  proposition 
to  cede  the  public  lands  to  the  States  in  which  they 
lie.  That  would  be  a  concession  to  State  sover- 
eignty;  and  while  we  “disposed”  of  the  land,  we 
would  get  clear  of  most  of  the  expenses  incident 
1  to  the  land  system.  One  fourth  of  the  expenses 
of  this  Government,  legislative,  executive,  and  ju¬ 
dicial,  relate  to  the  public  lands.  One  fourth  of 
the  President’s  patronage  arises  under  the  system. 
One  fourth  of  the  jobbing  in  and  about  Wash- 
i  ington  has  reference  to  it.  Hence  I  feel  very  much 


6 


inclined  to  favor  the  bill  introduced  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  by  Mr.  Speaker  Boyd,  and  ad¬ 
vocated  with  so  much  ability  by  a  distinguished 
Representative  from  Louisiana  [Judge  Perkins.] 
It  proposes  to  cede  the  public  lands  to  the  States 
in  which  they  lie,  upon  certain  conditions.  One  of 
which  is,  that  the  States  accepting  shall  pay 
seventy-five  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  to  the 
General  Government.  To  graduate  and  reduce 
the  price  of  the  public  lands,  or  to  extend  the 
preemption  system  would  be  much  more  prefer¬ 
able;  because,  whilst  the  Constitution  and  princi¬ 
ple  would  not  be  violated,  cheap  homes  would  be 
furnished  to  poor  settlers,  the  receipts  from  the 
public  lands  would  approximate  the  expenses. 
Several  amendments,  and  one  or  two  substitutes, 
have  been  offered  to  the  bill;  and  when  they  come 
up  I  may  have  a  few  further  remarks  to  make,  and 
s  one  or  two  amendments  to  suggest  my- 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  BILL. 

.  In  Senate,  May  24,  1854. 

The  bill  providing  territorial  governments  for 
Kansas  and  Nebraska,  having  been  returned  from 
the  House  of  Representatives  with  an  amendment, 
striking  out  the  “  Clayton  amendment”  prohibit- 
ingaliens  or  persons  not  naturalized  from  voting: 

Mr.  BRODHEAD  said: 

Mr.  President:  It  has  been  correctly  stated 
by  the  Senator  from  Illinois  [Mr.  Douglas]  that 
this  is  the  same  bill  which  we  passed  in  the  Senate 
sometime  since,  with  the  exception  of  one  very  im¬ 
portant  provision,  respecting  the  rights  of  unnat¬ 
uralized  citizens. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  It  may  be  well  to  state  that 
it  contains  some  verbal  alterations  in  its  grammati¬ 
cal  construciion,  but  there  is  no  variation  in  sense 
with  the  exception  mentioned  by  the  Senator. 

Mr.  BRODHEAD.  The  Senator  is  correct;  and 
as  1  do  not  wish  to  open  the  debate  on  the  merits 
of  the  bill  again,  I  will  only  consider  the  section 
respecting  the  qualification  of  voters,  which  the 
honorable  Senator  from  Maryland  [Mr.  Pearce] 
has  moved  to  amend  by  striking  out  the  clause 
authorizing  unnaturalized  citizens  to  vote.  The 
section  authorizes  all  free  white  persons  above 
the  age  of  twenty-one  to  vote  at  the  first  election, 
including  foreigners  who  have  not  become  citizens, 
but  have  declared  their  intention  to  become  such, 
andexcludingtheofficersand  soldiers  of  the  Army. 
So  that  a  foreigner,  unacquainted  with  our  lan¬ 
guage  or  laws,  not  twenty-four  hours  in  the  Ter¬ 
ritory,  and  who  has  not  been  in  our  country  ten 
days,  can  vote  without  paying  a  tax,  and  General 
Scott,  if  he  happened  to  be  there  commanding  our 
troops,  could  not.  The  Senator  from  Maryland 
has  moved  what  is  called  the  Clayton  amend¬ 
ment,  which  restricts  the  right  to  vote  to  those  v/ho 
are  citizens,  either  native-born  or  those  who  havp 
become  such  under  our  naturalization  laws;  and 
as  1  voted  for  it  when  the  bill  was  before  the 
Senate  upon  another  occasion,  and  have  seen  no 
reason  for  changing  my  vote,  I  will  do  so  again,  j. 
The  right  to  vote  and  take  part  in  the  Govern¬ 
ment  is  a  high  privilege,  and  I  hold  that  it  should 
only  be  exercised  by  those  who  have  become  citi¬ 
zens  and  entitled  to  the  rights  and  immunities,  and 
who  have  incurred  the  obligations  of  citizenship,  m 


perhap 

self. 


I  will  hereafter  state  how  an  alien  may  become  a 
citizen. 

There  has  been  many  misrepresentations  made 
respecting  the  effect  of  the  proposed  amendment. 
It  has  been  said  that  those  who  support  it  desire 
to  disfranchise  foreigners,  which  is  not  the  fact. 
It  has  been  said  that  the  Clayton  amendment  was 
stricken  out  by  the  House,  in  accordance  with  the 
example  furnished  in  the  bills  erecting  the  Terri¬ 
tories  of  Utah  and  Mew  Mexico ,  when  the  truth  is, 
that  the  Clayton  amendment  makes  it  conform  to 
those  bills,  as  I  will  presently  show.  And  those 
bills  were  part  of  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850,  and  better  considered  than  any  others.  The 
amendment  now  under  consideration,  is,  in  my 
judgment,  required  by  the  true  spiritand  meaning 
of  the  Constitution,  by  sound  policy,  and  justified 
by  precedent. 

The  Constitution,  in  the  eighth  section,  says, 
Congress  may  “  establish  a  uniform  rule  of  natu¬ 
ralization.”  Therefore,  whenever  Congress  acts, 
it  must  make  the  rule  uniform.  Well,  Congress 
has  established  a  rule  by  an  act  passed  in  1802, 
requiring  five  years  residence  before  admission  to 
citizenship,  and  now  it  is  proposed  to  establish 
another  rule  for  Nebraska.  And  what  good  rea¬ 
son  can  be  given  for  it.  Why  should  an  alien 
have  greater  privileges  in  Nebraska  than  in  Penn¬ 
sylvania?  I  voted  to  extend  the  present  natural¬ 
ization  laws  over  the  Territory  of  Nebraska, 
nothing  more.  By  whom  should  this  Govern¬ 
ment  be  carried  on — by  citizens  either  native-born 
or  naturalized,  or  by  foreigners?  And  how  does 
an  alien  become  a  citizen  in  this  country  ?  Only 
under  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  I  have 
cited  and  the  act  of  Congress  passed  in  pursuance 
thereof.  And  can  the  right  to  vote  properly  apper¬ 
tain  to  another  than  a  citizen  ?  If  foreigners  can 
have  and  enjoy  the  rights  and  privileges  of  citizens^ 
the  highest  one  of  which  is  to  vote, why  did  our  fore¬ 
fathers  “  establish  a  uniform  rule  of  naturaliza¬ 
tion?”  and  why  have  so  many  aliens  conformed 
to  it?  The  section  under  consideration  says,  any 
free  white  man  above  the  age  of  twenty-one  years 
(and  such  is  the  law  in  all  the  States)  shall  vote, 
&c.  So  that  we  require  a  native-born  person, 
acquainted  with  our  language,  educated  in  our 
schools,  &c.,  to  be  twenty-one  years  of  age  be¬ 
fore  he  is  thought  fit  to  exercise  the  high  privilege 
of  an  elector.  Our  forefathers  wisely  thought  that 
foreigners  should  take  five  years  to  become  trained 
in  the  ways  of  republicanism,  acquainted  with 
our  people,  our  law's,  our  complex  machinery  of 
government,  &c.,  and  1  concur  in  opinion  with 
them.  This  Government  can  or  lv  be  maintained 
by  an  intelligent  exercise  of  the  elective  franchise. 
Hence  we  have  always  heretofore  confined  the 
right  to  vote  to  free  while  persons  above  the  age 
of  twenty-one  years,  w'ho  are  native-born,  and  to 
aliens  who  have  been  in  the  country  five  years, 
and  complied  with  the  provisions  of  our  natural¬ 
ization  laws.  Our  views  of  constitutional  liberty 
differ  very  much  from  European  notions  of  liberty. 

It  may  be  profitable,  Mr.  President,  to  examine 
the  action  of  Congress  under  the  clause  of  the 
Constitution  requiring  an  “uniform  rule  of  natu¬ 
ralization.”  In  1789  the  Government  went  into 
operation  under  the  present  Constitution,  and  on 
the  26th  of  March,  1790,  the  first  naturalization 
law  was  passed,  requiring  t.vo  years’ residence, 
one  year  in  the  State  where  -toe  implication  is 


7 


made,  oath  to  support  the  Constitution,  &c.  To- ! 
ward  the  dose  of  Washington’s  administration, 
on  the  29th  of  January,  1795,  an  act  was  passed 
requiring  five  years’  residence,  three  years’ declar¬ 
ation  of  intention,  oath,  and  proof  of  good  moral 
character,  &c.  In  1797,  the  old  Adams  party 
came  into  power,  and  on  the  18th  of  June,  1798, 
an  act  was  passed  requiring  fourteen  years’  resi¬ 
dence,  five  years  in  the  State  in  which  the  appli¬ 
cation  is  made,  oath,  and  proof  of  good  moral 
character,  &c.  In  1801,  the  Jeffersonian  Demo¬ 
cratic  party  came  into  power,  and  on  the  14th  of 
April,  1802,  passed  an  act  requiring  five  years’ 
residence,  declaration  of  intention  two  years’  re¬ 
nunciation  of  allegiance  to  any  foreign  Prince, 
&c.,  oath  to  support  the  Constitution,  proof  of 
good  moral  character,  &c.  This  law  has  now 
been  in  force  for  more  than  fifty  years.  It  was 
intended  to  be  a  liberal  one,  for  the  country  was 
then  almost  a  wilderness.  It  was  satisfactory 
to  the  alien  at  that  time,  and  should  be  so  now. 
Any  attempt  to  modify  it,  or  to  denounce  those 
who  are  willing  to  stand  by  it,  on  the  part  of  the 
emigrants,  will  create  a  counter  sentiment,  highly 
injurious  to  them.  The  statistics  of  emigration 
show  that  up  to  1840,  only  one  million  of  emi¬ 
grants  have  arrived  in  the  country;  now  we  receive 
annually,  near  four  hundred  thousand.  During 
the  next  three  years,  we  will  receive  as  many  as 
we  did  for  thirty-five  years  prior  to  1840.  I  have 
no  feeling  of  hostility  to  them.  I  want  them  to 
come  here  and  enjoy  religious  and  political  free-  j 
dom,  protection  to  person  and  property,  and  in 
due  season  to  become  citizens  and  take  part  in  the 
government;  to  vote  and  to  hold  office.  Anyman 
who  pretends  anything  more  for  them  is  not  their 
true  friend.  The  wise  portion  of  them  do  not 
wish  any  thing  more  themselves.  Up  to  the 
present  time  foreigners  came  here  to  be  American¬ 
ized,  not  to  un-Americanize  us.  But,  I  confess  I 
have  witnessed  some  recent  demonstrations  that 
do  not  please  me.  The  movements  of  Kossuth  ! 
in  this  country  did  him  no  credit,  and  since  he  i 
returned,  he  has  issued  an  address  to  the  German 
eople  of  this  country  to  take  action  against  the 
enate  of  the  United  States  for  rejecting  a  gentle¬ 
man  nominated  by  the  President  for  consul  at 
London.  German  meetings  have  been  held  in 
different  parts  of  the  K  ited  States  to  denounce 
those  who  support  this  bill;  and  I  believe  they 
went  so  far,  in  some  places,  as  to  burn  the  hon¬ 
orable  and  distinguished  Senator  from  Illinois  in 
effigy.  P"f.  sir,  {  do  not  hold  the  great  mass  of 
them  res,  !e  for  these  acts.  The  honest  and 

industry  '-man  does  not  wish  to  meddle  un- 

seasona  politics,  nor  does  the  generous  and 

warm- hearted  Irishman  whose  heart  beats  respon¬ 
sive  to  le  bold  anthem  of  “  Erin-go-braugh. ” 
Those  who  set  themselves  up  for  leaders  among 
them,  who  claim  to  be  the  special  guardians  of 
their  rights,  who  pretend  to  have  the  same  religion 
that  they  have,  that  they  may  sell  them  out  in 
election  times,  either  for  money  or  office,  are  their 
worst  enemies.  I  liar  e  seen  a  good  many  claim 
office  on  the  allegation  that  they  influenced  this 
or  that  portion  of  the  alien  vote,  and  threaten 
those  in  power  with  the  displeasure  of  the  voters 
of  foreign  birth  if  they  were  not  gratified.  Did 
we  not  see  General  Scott,  the  gallant  old  chief, 
who  four  mg  the  war  of  1812  upon  our 

northern  ,  and  who  had  carried  the  stars 


and  stripes  of  our  country  in  triumph  to  the  halls 
of  the  Montezumas,  talking  during  the  last  presi¬ 
dential  canvass  about  the  “  rich  Irish  brogue,  and 
the  sweet  German  accent.”  It  was  a  humiliating 
spectacle.  For  my  part,  sir,  I  do  not  wish  to  see 
our  candidates  making  appeals  either  to  or  against 
any  portion  of  our  emigrant  population.  I  wish 
them  to  feel  as  American  citizens,  and  act  as  such 
at  the  proper  time.  But  when  they  hold  separate 
meetings,  why,  of  course,  they  induce  native-born 
American  citizens  to  hold  meetings  and  organize 
against  them. 

Mr.  President,  I  think  I  have  pretty  clearly 
shown  that  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  and 
sound  policy ,  require  aliens  to  become  citizens  un¬ 
der  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  I  have  referred 
to,  and  the  act  of  Congress  passed  in  pursuance 
thereof,  before  claiming  the  right  to  vote.  Our 
own  people,  moving  from  one  State  to  another, 
cannot  vote  in  the  State  into  which  they  move  until 
they  have  resided  therein  for  some  time,  and  paid 
tax.  In  most  of  the  States  it  is  two  years;  in 
some  one  year,  and  in  a  few  six  months.  Some 
time  is  supposed  to  be  necessary  to  enable  them  to 
become  acquainted  with  the  laws  and  the  people 
among  whom  they  reside.  I  will  now  proceed  to 
show  that  the  section,  as  it  comes  to  us  from  the 
House,  is  a  departure  from  previous  legislation. 

The  celebrated  Ordinance  of  1787,  organizing 
the  Northwestern  Territory,  prior  to  the  adoption 
of  the  Constitution,  contained  this  provision.  The 
Southwestern  Territory  was  afterwards  organized 
with  a  similar  provision: 

“  Provided,  That  no  person  be  eligible  or  qualified  toaet 
as  a  representative  unless  he  shall  have  been  a  citizen  of 
one  of  the  United  Stales  three  years,  and  be  a  resident  in 
the  district,  or  unless  he  shall  have  resided  in  the  district 
three  years,  and  in  either  case  shall  likewise  hold  in  hi? 
own  right,  in  fee  simple,  two  hundred  acres  of  land  within 
the  same  :  Provided,  also.  That  a  freehold  in  fifty  acres  of 
land  in  the  district,  having  been  a  citizen  of  one  of  the  States, 
and  being  resident  in  l tie  district,  or  the  like  freehold  and 
two  years  residence  in  the  district,  shall  be  necessary  to 
qualify  a  man  as  an  elector  of  a  representative.” 

In  J 808  Congress  passed  the  act  alluded  to  by 
the  Senator  from  Maryland.  It  not  only  required 
citizenship,  but  a  certain  amount  of  property.  It 
reads  as  follows  : 

“  That  every  free  white  male  person  in  the  Mississippi 
Territory,  above  the  age  of  twenty  one  years,  having  been 
a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  resident  in  the  said  Ter¬ 
ritory,  one  year  next  preceding  an  election  of  representa¬ 
tives,  and  who  has  a  legal  or  equitable  title  to  a  tract  of 
land,  by  virtue  of  any  act  of  Congress,  or  who  may  become 
the  purchaser  of  any  tract  of  land  from  the  United  States 
of  the  quantity  of  fifty  acres,  or  who  may  hold  in  his  own 
right,  a  town  lot  of  the  value  of  $100  within  the  said  Terri¬ 
tory,  shall  he  entitled  to  vote  for  representatives  to  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Assembly  of  said  Territory.” 

In  1819  Congress  authorized  the  people  of  the 
Territory  of  Michigan  to  electa  Delegate  to  Con¬ 
gress,  and  then  a  slight  departure  took  place,  but 
still  not  so  great  as  is  now  proposed.  A  residence 
of  one  year,  and  the  payment  of  a  tax,  was  re¬ 
quired  to  qualify  an  inhabitant  of  the  Territory  to 
vote.  The  section  under  consideration  neither 
requires  prior  residence,  payment  of  tax,  nor  evi¬ 
dence  of  intention  to  remain  in  the  Territory,  or 
naturalization.  The  following  is  the  law  to 
which  I  refer: 

“  Sec.  2.  Jlvd  he  it  further  enacted,  That  every  free 
white  male  citizen  of  said  Territory,  above  the  age  of 
twenty  one  years,  who  shall  have  resided  therein  one  year 
next  preceding  an  election,  and  who  shall  have  paid  » 
county  or  territorial  tax,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  soefa 


election  fora  Delegate  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
in  such  manner-,  and  at  such  times  and  places,  as  shall  he 
prescribed  by  the  Governor  and  judges  of  said  Territory.” 

In  1838  Congress  organized  the  Territory  of 
Wisconsin,  anti  in  1838  the  Territory  of  Iowa,  ij 
The  territorial  law  passed  for  Iowa  is  in  the  same 
language  as  that  contained  in  the  Wisconsin  bill. 
The  fifth  section  of  both  contains  a  significant 
proviso:  j 

“  Sec.  5.  Jlnd  be  it  further  enacted,  That  every  free 
white  male  citizen  of  the.  United  States,  above  the  age  of 
twenty  one  years,  who  shr.'<  have  been  an  inhabitant  of  said 
Territory  at  the.  time  <>*  its  organiza.1011,  shall  be  entitled 
to  vote  at  the  first  election,  and  shall  be  eligible  to  any  office  j 
within  the  said  Territory;  bur  the  qualifications  of  voters 
at  all  subsequent  elections  shall  be  such  as  shall  be  de-  j 
termined  by  ihe  Legislative  Assembly  :  Provided,  That  the 
right  o  f  suffrage  shall  be  exercised  only  by  citizens  of  the 
United  States .” 

In  1848  the  Territory  of  Oregon  was  organized, 
and  then  a  still  greater  departure  took  place;  but 
still  the  law  required  a  residence  in  the  Territory 
at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  act,  and  in  this  re¬ 
spect  it  differs  from  tne  iegi  Iation  now  pi  .  cj[. 

Then,  sir,  we  come  to  the  legislation  <$|0Rned 
in  the  compromise  measures  of  1850.  There  has 
been  a  great  misrepresentation  in  regard  to  the 
legislation  upon  this  subject  in  the  two  bills  organ¬ 
izing  the  Territories  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico. 

It  has  been  represented,  over  and  over  again,  that 
both  of  these  Territories  nave  been  organized  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  give  the  inhabitants,  whether 
native-born,  naturalized,  or  unnaturalized,  tlie  right 
to  vote.  It  is  not  so.  The  biil  organizing  the 
Territory  of  New  Mexico  was  approved  on  the 
9th  of  September,  1850;  the  Utah  bill  was  ap¬ 
proved  the  same  day.  This  provision  is  contained 
in  both: 

“  Sec.  G.  Jlnd  be  it  further  enacted,  Thai  every  free  white 
male  luhabiiant,  above  llie  age  of  twcuty-oue  years,  who 
*hall  have  been  a  resident  of  said  Territory  at  the  time  of 
the  palace  of  this  act.  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  the  first 
election,  arid  shall  be  eligible  to  any  otliee  within  the  said 
Territory;  but  the  qualifications  of  voters  and  of  holding 
office,  at  all  subsequent  elections,  shall  be  such  as  shall  be 
prescribed  by  the  Legislative  Assembly  :  Provided,  That 
the  rizht  of  suffrage,  and.  of  holding  office,  shall  be  exercised 
only  by  citizens  oj  the  United  States,  including  those  recog¬ 
nized  as  citizens  by  the  treaty  with  ike  Republic  of  Mexico, 
concluded  February  '2,  1848.” 

I  am  justified,  therefore,  in  saying  that  the  pro¬ 
posed  legislation  is  not  only  contrary  to  the  pro-  | 
visions  and  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  and  to 
sound  policy,  but  it  is  contrary  to  ihe  weight  of  ij 
precedent  upon  the  subject.  I  believe  we  have 
organized  eighteen  Territories,  and  in  a  majority 
of  them  the  right  to  vote  is  confined  to  citizens  of 
the  United  States.  In  1838,  on  the  question  of 
the  admission  of  Mi  Wigan  as  a  State,  Mr.  Cal¬ 
houn  and  Mr.  Clay  both  contended,  especially 
Mr.  Calhoun,  that  even  a  State  could  not  be  ad¬ 
mitted  into  the  Union  whose  constitution  author¬ 
ized  unnaturalized  aliens  tc  vote.  There  seemed  ji 
to  be  no  doubt  in  the  mind  f  either  that  unnatu-  jj 


ralized  persons  should  not  be  permitted  to  vote  in 
the  Territories. 

What  do  we  propose  to  do  now?  It  is  proposed 
to  pay  millions  for  this  territory  to  extinguish  the 
Indian  title.  We  paid  five  millions  to  extinguish 
the  Indian  title  in  Minnesota.  We  propose  now 
to  pay  millions  to  extinguish  the  Indian  title  in 
Nebraska  and  Kansas;  and  we  are  asked  to  turn 
over  the  government  of  both  Territories  into  the 
hands  of  foreigners,  and  thus  permit  them  to  lay 
the  foundation  of  two  States.  And  we  are  also 
asked  by  the  advocates  of  the  homestead  bill  to 
give  each  one  a  farm  besides. 

Mr.  President,  in  view  of  what  has  taken  place 
upon  this  Nebraska  and  Kansas  bill,  well  dis¬ 
posed  persons  may  well  inquire  whether  Congress 
is  capable  of  legislating  on  any  subject  where  sla¬ 
very  and  the  rights  of  aliens  may  be  called  in 
question.  There  seems  to  me  to  be  a  quailing 
before  the  spirit  of  Abolitionism  arid  a  foreign  in¬ 
fluence,  which  may  well  suggest  the  inquiry  to 
which  I  have  just  aliuded.  The  excitement  about 
slavery  in  the  Nebraska  country  shows  that  na¬ 
tions,  as  well  as  individuals,  are  more  troubled 
about  imaginary  than  real  evils.  I  have  been 
denounced  all  over  my  osvn  State  by  the  open  or 
secret  enemies  of  this  bill,  or  by  those  whose 
malice  against  me  has  long  had  the  upper  hand  of 
their  sense  of  justice,  as  voting  to  disfranchise 
aliens,  and  as  being  the  only  Senator  from  a  free 
State  who  voted  for  the  Clayton  amendment. 
Well,  sir,  it  is  true  that  1  am  the  only  Senator 
from  a  free  State  who  voted  for  it — anil  what  of 
it?  A  majority  of  my  brother  Senators  voted  for 
it,  and  a  majority  of  the  Democrats  of  this  body. 
The  Free-Soil,  or  Abolition  Senators,  as  they  are 
called,  of  course,  voted  against  it.  1  voted  with 
the  distinguished  Senators  from  Virginia. 

Mr.  HAMLIN.  Will  they  vote  with  you  now? 

Mr.  BRODHEAD.  I  do  not  know  whether 
they  will  or  not.  1  do  not  ask  who  is  going  to 
vote  with  me  or  against  me.  I  inquire  whether  it 
is  right,  as  1  did  when  the  Wilmot  proviso  was 
first  presented.  I  stood  almost  single-handed  and 
alone  against  that.  1  do  not  care  who  votes  with 
me  on  this  amendment.  It  is  right.  It  is  right 
and  just  to  the  aliens  themselves.  It  is  for  the 
purpose  of  maintaining  the  Constitution  and  the 
rights  of  American  citizens,  and  I  will  vote  for  it, 
be  the  consequences  to  myself  what  they  may.  I 
know  that  my  course  may  be  misrepresented  be¬ 
fore  the  alien  voters,  and  that  1  may  thus  incur 
their  displeasure;  but  I  will  do  my  duty, and  incur 
the  hazard.  When  the  amendment  wasfirst  pro¬ 
posed  by  the  honorable  Senator  from  Delaware,  it 
was  late  at  night.  1  was  acting  as  the  Presiding 
Officer,  and  could  not  give  the  reasons  by  which 
I  was  influenced!  i  ha1,  e  endeavored  to  do  so  now, 
and  respectfull}'  submit,  them  to  the  consideration 
of  the  Senate,  and  those  I  have  the  honor  to  rep¬ 
resent  on  this  floor. 


— - - - :  '  - — — 

Printed  at  t!ie  Congressional  Globe  Office. 


